learntoquestion ltq discussions

Originally posted by Steinbeck on October 14, 2025 22:52

Jeff McMahan believes that a soldier is not acting morally if they fight in a war that is unjust. This idea rests upon individual soldiers understanding if a war is just. While it may seem reasonable to think every soldier in a war has reflected upon their war effort and decided whether or not it is just, it however becomes much less clear in real life scenarios. One soldier rarely has all of the information they need in order to make an accurate assessment of a situation. This means that we can not blame individual soldiers for the wars they fight in as there is no feasible way for them to attain all of the information they need to make a judgment. It is, however, the responsibility of the elected officials of a country to make these decisions. This is something that a singular soldier or citizen of a country can change. It is the responsibility of citizens to elect officials that present the facts to their constituents. In a perfect democracy an elected leader should be able to represent the majority of opinions of those who elected them, the soldiers. An example where this went poorly can be seen in Germany before WW1. When the war was declared a statement was released which claimed “The responsibility for this disaster lies with the supporters of these policies; we [Germany] are not responsible”. The German government misrepresented the facts of the war to the people who would fight it. It is unfair to then blame all of the soldiers who then fought for this unjust cause.

Citizens under a democratic government have certain powers. They choose their leader, advocate for their ideas, and have the ability to speak out against the government however they are still citizens under a government. They must follow the rules the government puts in place to maintain order. The social contract theory states that citizens agree to surrender some freedoms in exchange for protection and order. One everyday example of this is the rules of the road. When driving we all know that we must stop at a red light. If one day, we all decided that this rule no longer applied to us what would result? There would be brutal car accidents killing countless people. We surrender our freedom to drive however we like in order to maintain protection. This then applies to a broader scope. Citizens of a nation follow the rules their government puts in place for them. I believe this principle does not change under the context of war. When a nation decides to go to war they make this decision as a way of upholding their promise to protect their people. We as citizens can not benefit from the protection our government provides, which has given us the ability to thrive within our society, without upholding our end of the promise, fighting to protect our nation. If every citizen in a nation decided to not fight or follow the rules put in place by the government, it would no longer be a nation.

Going to war for your country does not however need to change your individual moral compass. In the movie Full Metal Jacket the main character Joker is drafted to fight in the Vietnam war. After he has completed training he is assigned to be a war journalist. He takes this role seriously and makes an effort to accurately report on the killing taking place in Vietnam. His character is contrasted with other characters in the movie who senselessly kill innocent people. This contrast shows that soldiers can recognize they are individual humans with individual moral compasses. Being a soldier does not mean you can't also be a human. Both Joker and the soldiers who act immorally are people that are fighting for America however the individual actions they make are what distinct them from soldiers and humans.

This essay presents a clear argument that sparks thoughts about individual moral sense of responsibility during wartime, particularly through the discussion of Jeff McMahan’s claim that soldiers cannot act morally if they fight in an unjust war. Your most compelling idea is that individual soldiers often lack the full information necessary to make a judgment on whether a war is just. I agree with your point, as it is unrealistic to expect every soldier to have the ability to access information that is not publicly shown or the motives behind a war from a political perspective. A strong case is made for moral accountability falling mainly on government leaders, rather than the soldiers who are asked to serve.

Your reference to Full Metal Jacket effectively depicts how soldiers can manage to preserve their personal moral compass, despite being in an unjust situation. This connection emphasizes that morality under military structure becomes more complicated, rather than disappearing fully. Additionally, the link to the Social Contract Theory strengthens the argument, as it is grounded in philosophical principles.

Your essay could be even stronger if the Just War Theory was expanded upon in terms of how it interacts with McMahan’s argument. Clarifying topics such as the principles of jus in bello being applied even if a war is unjust would tie ideas to the readings.

Originally posted by Hibiscus on October 14, 2025 20:10

If a nation wages a war for unjust reasons, citizens of a nation called to fight may be conflicted on if they should fight or not, and there really is no objectively “right” decision. If the person fights, they are risking their lives, which may be fine if you agree with the reason for the war, but what about when the war is unjust and/or the person doesn’t support it? In an unjust war, there may be more casualties to a targeted nation, and by not participating for the sake of it being “unjust” they can almost put the blame on themselves, saying that they let the enemy do such things due to their inaction. With enough people not supporting, defense is gone and for saving your own life or morality, the lives of others are affected. However, if you are on the side creating these casualties, fighting may go against your moral compass, adding another layer of depth to this issue.

Defending your nation takes courage, whether you agree or not with the reason, as you are risking your life to defend something beyond just yourself. Does it take more courage not to fight? Depending on the measures you need to take to avoid fighting, such as escaping a draft, going to jail or other repercussions, it can take courage to not fight. However, I don’t believe that it takes more courage not to fight and I don’t believe that fighting in a war, whether you agree or not with it, is cowardice.

If each citizen were to only follow their own moral compass in war, it’s likely that no war would be just. Where is the line for what is moral? While one person may see one action in war as immoral, another person could say that doing so is moral. Both are right and neither are at the same time. Morality is subjective to one’s own personal beliefs, so everyone acting out on their own morality would lead to a war with casualties that don’t follow the standards of a just war. The standards of a just war, as defined by Jus Ad Bellum in the excerpt of Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum (Encyclopedia of Philosophy), are “... having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.” All factors that include something along the lines of “just,” “right,” and “reasonable” are all subjective. If each citizen acts according to their morality, the concept of “just war” becomes unattainable.

In every war, there are people who disagree with fighting/the war. They are known as conscientious objectors, following their moral standard out into their decisions and opinions concerning wars and fighting. A similar idea has shown up in class before where people break away from the ideas, nations, or mass movements, to create new ideas, nations or mass movements. They are non-conformers and follow their own moral compass. Similarly in regards to war, a person who disagrees with war and declines their position in fighting also goes against the norm and is a non-conformer, but specifically is a conscientious objector. This type of following one’s morality can be both harmful and helpful to a nation. Someone may be objecting since they truly believe that the nation could do better and be an activist again a nations corrupt ways. On the other hand, a conscientious objector may be doing more harm by not supporting/defending it’s country, leading back to the paradox mentioned at the beginning of this reflection.

If each person acts according to their own morality, possibly creating war casualties, losing defense to conscientious objective thinking, and overall having an unjust war, a nation can be at risk of collapse. Since there is a lack of unity among people, whether that be in agreement with each other or by following orders, a nation can weakened and can possibly no longer endure.

The most compelling idea in my peer's post would be the subjectivity of unjust war and whether not being able to participate in it is wrong war. They bring up this point, which is really important, but is not commonly thought of as it splits between the two sides. They discuss the self inlficted problems in war in detail and in multiple situations. So I appreciated the unique perspective. However, I do veer on the side of not being able to participate as it gives options, therefore I don't agree with it fully. My post connected with this one very well regarding the question of what would happen if every country's citizens followed their moral compass regarding war. "No war would be just," as they say. Opinion is subjective, and morals vary. Sometimes we need to put past some things we may disagree in order to participate in an act that can grow to become benefitial. Whether as extreme as war, or as simple as a stance on a topic in history class. One view that they display that I don't necessarily agree with is the idea that being a conscientious objector is representative of a rejection to conformity. We can't really predict what people will feel regarding a war until it really begins. Not every war has had the majority of people align with it's ideals, so this idea of conforming regarding conscientious objectivity is, again, subjective and relative to the war itself. All in all, there are a lot of things said well and a lot of great points made, but I would appreciate if they took more of a specific stance regarding some of the questions. They consistently explain both sides well but just never highlight how they truly feel and their reasoning.

Originally posted by user927 on October 15, 2025 14:29

War as a whole is not always wrong, as it is often used as a last resort and can be a tactful, organized method of solving conflict. When groups begin to take advantage of their ability to wage war and inflict unnecessary violence on others, that is when the morality of war begins to raise questions. War is not something to be proud of or eager to go into, as it inflicts pain and suffering and involves death and destruction. For the modern world, the consequentialism model is more realistic than the intrinsicism model because it allows each war to have its own justifications whereas the intrinsicism model is very black and white. Just War Theory, particularly jus ad bellum, does act as a bridge between the intrinsicism model and the consequentialism model; however, I feel it leans more towards the consequentialism model, as it acknowledges that war is very situational, and has the possibility of being justified, whereas the intrinsicism model believes that war is simply wrong.

There are many circumstances in which war can be necessary, and consequently justified. Oftentimes, war is the strategy to prevent greater harm and destruction. For instance, the defeat of Nazi Germany during WWII prevented the Nazis from completing the “Final Solution” part of their plan to eliminate all European Jews. Thousands of Jewish prisoners were liberated, saved from starvation, illness, and gruesome abuse. Although the defeat of Nazi Germany by the U.S., the Soviet Union, and Great Britain resulted in casualties and harm, the outcome if Nazi Germany had not been defeated would have been much worse. This demonstrates how war, although it may not be pretty, can be necessary. This is why it is important to consider the greater, overall outcome of war. It is crucial to avoid having tunnel vision, only acknowledging the direct consequences of the war. Overall, war should only be used as a strategy when diplomacy fails.

Intrinsicism seems like the morally corrupt mindset to have when it comes to war. In a perfect world, our views would all align with one another, and consequently, the intrinsicism model and we could all live peacefully without ever needing war. Unfortunately, this is just not the world we live in. We exist in a complex global society in which complete pacifism would result in injustices that are arguably worse than war. For example, according to the intrinsicism method, in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, Ukraine should not engage in any violence at all, leaving Russia to invade as the wish. By this way of thinking, even self-defense is morally impermissible. Intrinsicism oversimplifies the very complicated topic of war, disregarding its context and consequences.

In the modern world, consequentialism is a far more realistic method of thinking in regards to war. Going to war is no light decision which is why leaders must consider aspects such as civilian harm and long-term stability, weighing the overall costs. For example, following the 9/11 attacks, military action in Afghanistan was largely justified as a means of preventing any future loss through dismantling terrorist organizations. As stated in the excerpt from Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “if more will be gained from breaking the rules than will be lost, the consequentialist cannot but demur to military necessity.” This highlights how war is not morally good or bad, but it must be weighed and considered in multiple aspects. Moral evaluation in society today must be nuanced, which correlates with the consequentialist model.

I feel that we touched on pretty similar points although your response is a little more fleshed out. I also believe that in our current world, the consequentialist model is the one that better assists us in navigating disagreements. Wars have different justifications and the intrinsic model limits that. I do feel that since the intrinsic and consequentialist models are on opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of the justification of war, Just War Theory will skew towards consequentialism if the opposing side is fully against war. Since we live in a world where one hundred percent non-violence to this extreme is rare, it makes sense that it would lean towards consequentialism as is. I like how you began your last paragraph because I felt that I also said something very similar. We do not live in a perfect world where the ideal intrinsic model could work and our world is so complex with nuances and layers that it can often become difficult for us to see eye to eye. I really like the basis of your examples and how you fully explain them thoroughly

I think that many other posters made the same connection as you that war is not inherently good but it can be useful as a last resort means to solve problems. Many others also likewise stated the real world adaptability with consequentialist ideas rather than intrinsic highlighting this near consensus that the consequentialist model fits better with our world. It again is a really difficult topic to just outright determine if war is completely or never acceptable but the points you brought up and the examples you provide show a clear and concise line of reasoning as to what method is the best at providing balance in our world.

Originally posted by jumpingfrog1635 on October 14, 2025 20:58

I do not believe that war is always wrong and firmly believe that organized violence on a larger scale can be justified. War is sometimes a necessary evil, especially when faced with a bully-like power, preying on third world, small countries. One key modern day example includes the war in Ukraine against Russia. I believe that the consequentialism model is more realistic for the current world that we live in. For example, the case of the terrorists and the hospital. I believe it would be more justified and also better for a country to let the whole hospital burn into dust rather than let the terrorists intrude, saving the lives of the innocent in the hospital but potentially causing external harm. Although this can be argued strictly with numbers, we can justify this more by discussing the detriment of the opposite, intrinsicist model. Yet contained in some small settings, it is more likely to lead to larger political injustices, and, as we have discussed in class recently with Sultan Abdul Hamid and the Ottoman Turks, can cause greater susceptibility to genocides and other forms of mass destruction. Just War Theory does act as a bridge between these 2 ideas. Jus ad bellum preaches ideas of good intentions, just cause, and legit authority regarding war and if/when to wage war. Despite this, it does acknowledge how war can cause moral disturbance and conflicts and must be very well run under these ethical conditions, which seems sometimes unachievable. In this, we see the justification of both the consequentialist and intrinsicist models

I believe that if a nation wages war for unjust reasons, its citizens should be able to refuse to participate. Although what may be just or unjust is argumentative and varies from person to person, there are certain morals and standards that a country and its citizens must follow and appreciate. Truthfully, especially in the case of a person under rule of extreme nationalist powers like the Austro-Hungarians or Ottomans, it shows more will-power and strength by refusing rather than battling physically hard in war. To build on that again, like we have discussed with social conformity, betraying personal ethics to participate in something that is morally wrong shows weakness and has internal consequences. In summary, it takes more courage to not fight in defense of your nation. Yet, while understanding and appreciating this, it is also important to understand the consequences it can have if all people in a country act solely according to one’s moral compass. Even a modern power like the U.S. could be out of an abundance of soldiers and, in return, power. There must be some order and discipline in order to keep a country working in unison. Despite this, nations, and the consequences they endure as a result of waging unjust ware, are realistic. I do agree with McMahan’s idea because acting permissibly includes acting morally and justifiably, while not participating in any unnecessary and harmful injustices that truly may have no effect on the outcome of war. War has its limitations, and groups have come together, like the UN, to set its guidelines. In the case of the United States Military, as a citizen, you can’t kill someone unless it is deemed out of self defense and being a threat on your life. This idea should be and is generally applied to the battlefield, again, some things are deemed necessary evils. But, this does not give you the right to bomb a remote village or kill any citizen in sight. In this, we see how jus in bello can assist soldiers to act morally, abiding by these rules. Yet, this should not be the only determining factor, as we should still be able to make the correct judgement morally.

Learn to Question Post 3: Peer Response

This post has a clear and well supported argument and I really liked how you described war as “necessary evil” when facing unjust aggression like with the examples of Russia and Ukraine. That example made your stance stronger and connected to current events. I also thought your explanation of jus ad bellum was clear because you showed how it is used as a bridge between intrinsic and consequentialism by setting moral limits without ignoring the reality of modern conflicts.

The most compelling part of your post in my opinion was your argument that it can take more courage to refuse participation in an unjust war than to fight for one's country. I agree with you that standing with someone's personal morals especially under the pressure of politics and society shows true strength. It reminded me of our class discussions about moral responsibility and social conformity.

You could say more about the potential consequences of widespread refusal like asking how a country might keep order at the same time as respecting individual morality could make your response deeper. Overall your writing was clearly showing the strong understanding of just war theory and its moral complexity and did a good job at connecting theory to modern examples.

Originally posted by greywatch on October 14, 2025 19:13

Originally, I believed that war is never justified and that hurting anyone is just wrong. After learning a bit more about what just warfare is, I think my perspective has shifted from a strict anti-war belief to more in between consequentialism and intrinsic ism. I think it’s unrealistic to be completely on either side because situations or conflicts are not just black-and-white. There is a gray area which accounts for miscommunication, misunderstanding, and other things that was hinder two or more parties from reaching a peaceful compromise for example if a group of people want to be independent from an oppressor, then they should have the right to gain such independence. Ideally, the two would be able to reach a compromise peacefully however, in most cases, aggression would be used on both sides . I think that there is also a great area in what are permissible reasons for war and who gets to decide what is permissible and what is considered wrong. If a nation wages war unjustly then assistance should have the right to refuse to participate in the war effort. Citizens should not be forced to do so against their will. I believe it takes a great deal of courage not to fight in defense of your nation, if you do not believe in causes, I also think it’s just as hard to fight in a war that you don’t believe in, but it takes less courage to do so, because it would go along with the majority after a speech announcing that Germany had declared war, the party leaders “thousands of Germans gathered in the streets not to protest the war but to show their support for it.” If one disagrees to begin with now that the majority of the country is in support of the cause it would be much more difficult to stand against it, even if they truly believe that the justifications of war are faulty. disagree to begin with now that the majority of the country is in support of the cause it would be much more difficult to stand against it, even if they truly believe that the justifications of war are faulty. If each citizen acts only in accordance with their own world compass, then that would most likely produce a split nation, causing unrest between those in support of the war and those against it. That would make it incredibly difficult to actually wage war because they wouldn’t be able to mobilize for it. I think that within any nation, there are often people who don’t go with the majority but usually not so many that they greatly affect the wishes of the nation specifically if it wants to go to war. and if one does end up in war, despite whether or not, they believe in the cause they have an obligation to act honorably. However, this is not an excuse for great acts of violence conducted by a group or commanded by authority. There is still a duty to do things in accordance with the law. I think that even if a soldier acts honorably if the battle itself is inherently unjust, then they still complicit in unjust warfare. I recognize that it is incredibly difficult to stand up to authority or against a whole nation who is for one thing when you believe another, but in terms of honor and courage the right thing to do would be to stand against and just wear and not participate. The right thing to do would be to stand against and just wear and not participate.

Post your response here.

I agree with the main statement that overall it is morally better to stand up against an unjust war rather than be complicit and I certainly appreciated the explanation of how the different interpretations of morals within wartime can lead to uncertainty about what is good or bad when involving violence. I also liked how they sort of incorporated questions within different prompts in their answer, this allowed for the LTQ to serve as somewhat of an overall summary of Just War Theory that seemed to cover a lot of ground. These ideas shared a lot of similar opinions with others, especially on the uncertainty and confusion that comes with involving morals with war. Unfortunately, the most obvious feedback I could give is the repetitive grammatical errors that hindered my understanding, for example some sentences had seemingly lost a word (or a few) at the beginning or a sentence repeated twice. These errors make the author’s ideas with specific points that seemed to be mentioned but not clear or understandable, making the LTQ feel rushed and not complete. Overall, I can understand most of the points made, and agree with all of them, but, I can’t seem to wonder how much better it would be had they expanded on them more and with less errors.

Originally posted by Champ on October 15, 2025 08:49

War can never be subjected to being good or bad, and morality within war is always a grey area, context and perspective surround every idea and opinion relation to war ethics. However, if we do not make certain guidelines for war, we can not hold nations responsible and accountable. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy on ‘Just War Theory’ summarizes this idea in excerpt 1 as it states “in political circles, justification of war still requires even in the most critical analysis a superficial acknowledgement of justification.” There are two ethical ideas often used to describe war ethics: Intrinsicism and consequentialism. Intrinsicism follows the idea that certain acts are either good or bad and often involves the idea that all war is inherently wrong, regardless of the outcome. Consequentialism argues that actions in war can be justified only by the results of the act, often it is centered around the idea of a “greater good” for the people. Although they are both common ideas, intrinsicism can lead to an ignorance towards the context of the act and consequentialism can lead down a slippery slope of different interpretations and too much trust in expectations.

Consequentialism is better for our society because it recognizes the power of results, if certain things were blatantly good or bad nothing would get done and nothing would be achieved. Of course, this idea can lead down a very dangerous path as this can turn too much attention on the outcome and ignoring the ethical choice all together. For example, the idea of doing an action for the “greater good” of a group is incredibly dangerous because the greater good of a group of people, might be seen as dangerous to another. In similar cases people often talk about military “necessity” which involves the consequentialist idea that within certain conditions if a nation has reason to believe some terrible action deserves immediate, strong defence it is truly necessary to take military action. This represents a huge issue within consequentialism where many nations might simply be acting for personal interest, although the outcome might be good for them it did not do any good world-wide proportional to the violence. This idea is highlighted within many wars, one of which being the vietnam war, as the U.S. deemed it truly necessary for them to act against communism they launched a war claiming to protect vietnam, while killing thousands of innocent civilians ending in one of the most well known and intense unjust wars of the past century. If one thought that consequentialism was too extreme, they could follow more intrinsicist ideas that some acts of violence can’t be justified. But this idea, again, leads to nothing getting done as it can completely rule out the positive effects it can have and only focuses on the negative.

The Just War Theory specifically achieves this through the rules: just cause (a country must have a good reason to wage war), lawful authority (an established leader must publicly declare war), right intention (the only motive must be for peace and the “greater good” of everyone), last resort (there must be an attempt to negotiate peace beforehand) , reasonable chance of success (if war is waged and they know they will not win the death of everyone is in vain), proportionality (the violence must be proportional to the cause), and humane treatment (soldiers and citizens must be treated decently with a certain guideline). The most important and argued topics are just cause and humane treatment. Just cause is the center of justifying the reason for war, without a solid cause to war it can easily become incredibly destructive purely for personal gain. Humane treatment is intensely argued because it is widely believed that during war time different people deserve different treatment, but the title given to people, and how those titles get treated is completely up for interpretation. These ideas can have slightly different interpretation depending on the circumstances of the war, specifically through the perspective of government and civilians, at the same time it regulates how much a nation can get away with through an unbiased lens. The Just War Theory becomes a medium for both ideas as it emphasizes the significance of context and outcome by applying a set of guidelines and rules. In Excerpt 1 from Encyclopedia of Philosophy on ‘Just War Theory’ they summarize this idea saying “the inherent problem with both [consequentialism and intrinsicism] is that they become either vague or restrictive when it comes to war,” but the principles of Just War Theory “ are not wholly intrinsicist nor consequentialist--they invoke the concerns of both models.”

I agree with the idea that morality within war is a grey area and that war can never be seen as strictly good or bad. One compelling idea in this post is that one issue within the consequentialism method is that some nations may act on personal interest, with zero regard for those around them who could also be impacted. While it is necessary to consider the overall outcome if we follow the consequentialism method, nations may overlook the smaller ethical choices that could inflict unnecessary violence. Similarly, chicken also identifies a weakness of consequentialism which is that it could lead to increased moral corruption and violence that is deemed necessary. Both my peer, and I believe that consequentialism better fits our society because it takes away the idea of good vs evil, and acknowledges that context and outcomes are important for justifying war. I like the use of examples such as the Vietnam War. I also think the explanations, specifically in the third paragraph of all the rules for just cause. I feel as though there is a lot of summary, especially in the first paragraph which is good for setting the stage but probably could’ve been a bit more limited- less summary, more opinionated. Overall, this is a really strong response and I enjoyed hearing these ideas

Originally posted by chugjug on October 14, 2025 23:34

War is not always wrong and the usage of it can be extremely beneficial but also negative. While many of us go into this class seeing war as nothing but a negative attribute of taking, keeping, and fortifying land, fighting over resources, and killing innocent lives, war can serve to be a mediator and prevent death from continuing to spread on. In our history, there are many instances where sitting aside and not attacking or attacking back can cause mass casualties and create matters that are far worse than that of fighting in a war and coming to a resolution. In our current political climate, seeing war as a mediator and a method to prevent mass casualties might seem futile, but in many instances, it proves true. The idea that war can work requires that both sides fight fairly. Excerpt one details how soldiers are taught the ethics of war like we are taught English and mathematics in school. There are rules that we have established to be unruly and to be a war crime and these attributes of war are the reason we see our 21st century wars to be laced with danger and an increased death toll rather than a resolution. We are able to live in a country that is far from war despite being entangled in it to the point where many feel like there is no need to worry about war in another country. War is a difficult topic and it is one that requires a lot of thought to justify.

When looking at both the intrinsic and consequentialist models we are pushed to a side: the belief that war is morally wrong and never right, and the idea that war can be justified if there is a great enough reason or the outcome is good enough to wage a war. If we pretend that the world is a perfect yet complex society, maybe the intrinsic model would work, but in our society, the worst case scenario that larger countries would conquer smaller countries showcases why there is a need for the consequentialist model. There are many caveats to these ideas like fighting only with non-violence and morality within individuals but choosing a side can result in a fixed mindset where we believe that something is inherently and completely right or wrong.

The Just War Theory bridges the gap between the two ideas and provides a way to see war as a concept that relies on circumstance. Just War Theory creates this alternative where an individual can take what they believe from either perspective and make their own informed decisions about war without fully agreeing with a side. The consequentialist model creates this one sided image where it is only beneficial for the side that we are biased towards and interlinks itself with the us vs them idea. Following this idea, we can identify issues facing a system where we believe a war is just because of our party affiliation. In this, one side may deem it acceptable but the other may see it as violent and extreme. Deciding that war is entirely wrong or completely acceptable requires a perfect world where we can either not fight in wars at all or fight fairly. We do not live in a perfect world.

I agree with their consequential claim that war has extreme negatives, however some situations would benefit from war as a mediator. I also agree that soldiers and countries should be given and follow the rules that have been outlined in order to create a more just war, but I do not think this is always possible.

It's interesting how they brought up how the United States has been entangled in wars, and it has little effect on the day to day lives of many Americans. I was thinking about this too and connecting it to the dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451 where there is a war going on, but it doesn’t seem to have any effects on the main character, which is what is happening now and brings up questions on if that is just war or not.

Additionally, I agree that war is more complex than saying one agrees with one model or another, and Just War Theory can shed some light on the complexities of the situation. I also talked about how the world is imperfect so we have to come up with solutions like the Just War Theory that will hopefully provide some structure to wars. All these rules could be thrown out the window in the face of another large scale war, but that is yet to be seen.

Originally posted by kdj729 on October 14, 2025 22:19

War is sadly an unavoidable fact of life and must be treated as such. Even though war creates problems that may go on to persist for years, it is the only way we have to resist oppression and fight for our values. The intrinsic belief that war is always wrong is certainly justified, however it dulls down the complex issues that war brings with it into simple terms of good and bad. In reality, war is far more complicated, and there isn’t always a way to argue that all our problems can be solved without it. That being said, we also have to consider how we define war and how we justify waging it. That’s where Just War Theory comes into play. While yes a consequentialist point of view is for the most part a necessity in modern war, we also need Just War Theory to justify consequentialist actions. This is where things become sketchy, since as Excerpt 1: Just War Theory-Jus Ad Bellum establishes, many people have different interpretations of topics like revenge, how many resources are appropriate, and they even debate how much danger one needs to be in to declare war. That document explains that this problem comes from the fact that, “when enemies differ greatly because of different religious beliefs, race, or language…war conventions are rarely applied”. While it’s hard to pick a side as either intrinsicist or consequentialist, Jus Ad Bellum hopes to act as a sort of mediator between the two. Jus Ad Bellum explores exactly when it is appropriate to wage war and includes intrinsic ideas like that citizens should never be attacked, while also acknowledging the consequential belief that everything can be justified. For someone that can’t fully commit to being against war or trying to justify everything, Jus Ad Bellum is a solid place to start.

The problem with Jus Ad Bellum is that it looks more at the rights of an individual nation to wage war, ignoring the opinions of individuals who are against war. This would mostly materialize in the form of conscientious objectors, who for one reason or another refuse to go to war. Religion is usually the driving factor that keeps conscientious objectors from war, however many people also object for simpler ideas that they are unwilling to harm others, especially when it is of no gain to themselves. This brings up another serious question: what about the people who are against war but can’t bring themselves to stand up against it? People should always feel obligated to act as they want to, but there’s a variety of constant pressures socially and physically that bring them to go against their own ideas. It’s not necessarily cowardice to fight for what you don’t believe in because we have to consider that even agreeing to put your life on the line, regardless of the reason, is certainly an act of courage. Despite this, it’s more accurate to say that refusing to fight against your beliefs is far more courageous than not because it tells everyone around you that you’re not a conformist. For context, many objectors were persecuted and looked down upon for doing so, and still refusing while knowing about those dire consequences takes real bravery and an extremely strong sense of self.

I think my peer’s most compelling argument is that principles in war can never be truly enforced and aren’t super defined, which can lead them to be exploited. I also agree that, although it isn’t perfect, Jus ad Bellum is a good starting point to war law. The strongest similarity between their post and my post is that all of this war theory often overlooks the individual citizens in the nation. Really, the most powerful people of a nation decide things like war, declaring the nation as “for” or “against” a cause, which may lead to the common perception of that nation being that everybody feels that way. However, any person from a nation may hold a differing opinion but is scared to voice it, or may not understand the conflict at all. With that being said, I strongly disagree with their claim that war is the only way to resist oppression or solve problems. Although war is certainly one method, many groups of people have historically fought back in a peaceful manner, i.e. the Civil Rights Movement, or otherwise, like in political feuds, or even in smaller battles. Many other kinds of problems, such as territory or ideological disputes have also been solved without wars. However, I understand where they are coming from, as we most often hear about disputes resulting in wars, rightfully so, because they are hurtful and affect a lot of people.

Originally posted by jumpingfrog1635 on October 14, 2025 20:58

I do not believe that war is always wrong and firmly believe that organized violence on a larger scale can be justified. War is sometimes a necessary evil, especially when faced with a bully-like power, preying on third world, small countries. One key modern day example includes the war in Ukraine against Russia. I believe that the consequentialism model is more realistic for the current world that we live in. For example, the case of the terrorists and the hospital. I believe it would be more justified and also better for a country to let the whole hospital burn into dust rather than let the terrorists intrude, saving the lives of the innocent in the hospital but potentially causing external harm. Although this can be argued strictly with numbers, we can justify this more by discussing the detriment of the opposite, intrinsicist model. Yet contained in some small settings, it is more likely to lead to larger political injustices, and, as we have discussed in class recently with Sultan Abdul Hamid and the Ottoman Turks, can cause greater susceptibility to genocides and other forms of mass destruction. Just War Theory does act as a bridge between these 2 ideas. Jus ad bellum preaches ideas of good intentions, just cause, and legit authority regarding war and if/when to wage war. Despite this, it does acknowledge how war can cause moral disturbance and conflicts and must be very well run under these ethical conditions, which seems sometimes unachievable. In this, we see the justification of both the consequentialist and intrinsicist models

I believe that if a nation wages war for unjust reasons, its citizens should be able to refuse to participate. Although what may be just or unjust is argumentative and varies from person to person, there are certain morals and standards that a country and its citizens must follow and appreciate. Truthfully, especially in the case of a person under rule of extreme nationalist powers like the Austro-Hungarians or Ottomans, it shows more will-power and strength by refusing rather than battling physically hard in war. To build on that again, like we have discussed with social conformity, betraying personal ethics to participate in something that is morally wrong shows weakness and has internal consequences. In summary, it takes more courage to not fight in defense of your nation. Yet, while understanding and appreciating this, it is also important to understand the consequences it can have if all people in a country act solely according to one’s moral compass. Even a modern power like the U.S. could be out of an abundance of soldiers and, in return, power. There must be some order and discipline in order to keep a country working in unison. Despite this, nations, and the consequences they endure as a result of waging unjust ware, are realistic. I do agree with McMahan’s idea because acting permissibly includes acting morally and justifiably, while not participating in any unnecessary and harmful injustices that truly may have no effect on the outcome of war. War has its limitations, and groups have come together, like the UN, to set its guidelines. In the case of the United States Military, as a citizen, you can’t kill someone unless it is deemed out of self defense and being a threat on your life. This idea should be and is generally applied to the battlefield, again, some things are deemed necessary evils. But, this does not give you the right to bomb a remote village or kill any citizen in sight. In this, we see how jus in bello can assist soldiers to act morally, abiding by these rules. Yet, this should not be the only determining factor, as we should still be able to make the correct judgement morally.

This perspective firmly believes that they were not wrong, but specifies that war is justified specifically in organized violence. I disagree with that perspective because from my understanding, letting a hospital get bombed for the greater cause is not something I can agree with. I think that getting people at their weakest point is cruel and so taking advantage of the sick. I understand that this may mean long term that there will be less war or a shorter war.I do however agree that war can cause moral and physical distress. I also don’t agree that if a nation wages war for an unjust reason then they should be able to compel citizens to fight for the cause. I think that they should have autonomy and decide for themselves whether or not they believe in the cause before they enter a war. I do believe in patriotism and respectful national pride but I also believe in freedom of choice. It does take a lot of courage to refuse to fight in a war but it also takes a lot of strength to fight in a war for a cause that you don't believe in or agree with. All in all we agree that soldiers should act morally and responsibly in warfare. I think that it is very interesting to read other perspectives because I understand that this response is based in reason and evidence, however we still disagree in most aspects.

Originally posted by pinkrose2 on October 16, 2025 08:54

Originally posted by Kitkat on October 14, 2025 21:37

When we think of war today, we often think of corruption- war profiteering, exploitation of the lower classes, unnecessary damage to civilians, and ulterior motives. However, this does not represent war as a whole- there are certain cases in which war is a necessity. But what are these cases?

When approaching the topic of war, there are two main ideas- the intrinsicism model is consequentialist. Both present very opposing views of war, and so the task at hand is finding a happy medium. When thinking about it from a modern day viewpoint, the idea of what a just outcome for a war would be feels very distorted and leans away from actually just, mainly due to the reasons listed above and more. This in turn should require a more intrinsic leaning approach. There also needs to be a certain thoroughness when making the decision to engage in war. When dealing with such large powers as countries it’s difficult to keep them in check, hence why it is important to have outside perspectives. Jus Ad Bellum highlights that war should be a “last resort”. In my mind, that means that damage would be done regardless of if the war happened, possibly even more if not. A lot of it is about starting off on the defense- as stated from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “initiation of physical force is wrong and may be justly resisted”. If it is simply a mainly one-sided attack that is not a war, that is just a massacre. However, that does not mean other outlets should not be sought out first; the thoroughness for before a war is essential.

Now, when looking at Just War Theory, there are two different sectors: reasons for the war, conduct for war, and how to approach aftermath. Reasoning for starting a war feel more consequentialist, being very set on “intention of war” and “chance of success”, not exactly setting any clear boundaries on where these fall, though it does establish there is a right and wrong with a call for “just cause”. It is also important to clarify that Jus in Bello seems to clarify these more intrinsic aspects, such as rules on not attacking civilians.

If a war is waged for unjust reasons, it is completely acceptable not to participate in the war. There definitely a point to be made on the patriotism in freely critiquing your country, because you have higher hopes for your nation. An argument can also be made that if the idea of standing against unjust war efforts being honorable became more commonplace, each side would in turn lose some of their power and cause less damage. When discussing whether it is courageous or cowardly to stand against the war, and courageous or cowardly to join it, we are discussing two very different forms of courage and cowardice. Both cowardice and courage may play a part in the decision to stay out of a war, but either way they are active, which in my opinion is more honorable then passively joining the war effort, whether that is done with courage or cowardice. It is passive because your are letting the crowd decide for you- going back to our many discussions on social conformity theory. Standing against the war effort was also much more of a risk than it is today.

When actually on the battlefield, it is important to distinguish between the commanders and the soldiers. While people can become lost in their actions due to the general craze of a battlefield environment, their behavior can also tie back to the observations made with the Milgram experiment- once given orders, people become less attached to their actions and the responsibility of it. This means these commanders giving the orders should definitely be held to a higher standard. However, soldiers are not exempt from punishment; not just to make up for their actions, but also as a reminder that they are still responsible for their actions. There are also other factors that come into play, of course, such as if they are being pressured to do these things with threat of violence or something similar. It is also important to keep in mind the strong grip mob mentality can have on the conscience, which philosopher Bertrand Russell described by saying, “the whole state is in a state of collective excitement” (in reference to national mobilization during World War 1). There are also certain actions that cannot possibly be brushed off as “being lost in the craze”. This is mainly actions that have been highlighted by the Geneva Conventions, such as torture and rape. Theses actions also cannot be written off as permissible simply because they are fighting in a just war- if they are trying to claim to be the more “just” side, why would that stop at the battle line?

LTQ #3: Peer Response

The most compelling idea in my peer’s post is that fighting in a war that a person knows is morally wrong takes less courage than going against the war itself. I actually touched upon this point in my own LTQ, where I expressed an opinion that opposes this idea. Initially, I believed that it takes more courage to conform to something that you know is terribly wrong, but does happen more frequently. However, hearing the explanation and analysis of my peer’s point of view, my opinion has changed, and I now agree that joining in a war that goes against a person’s morals does take less courage than going against war entirely. I was able to alter my opinion, because this post had me applying this logic to real world-situations.

Right now, I am thinking about bullying. If I have a friend that is the mediator and the catalyst of bullying, and I join in, knowing that it’s wrong I am conforming to the pressures of my friend, therefore it takes so much more strength to against something and not succumb to the peer pressure. Again, connecting back to their post, I respected the idea of tying this idea to social conformity, passively acting, and then how either actions stem from courage and/or cowardice.

My views on this topic are relatively similar to this person’s post, even though we commented on different aspects of this topic, but the content was clear and understandable. On the other hand, the question at the beginning was very captivating and enticing, as a reader. It had me reflect on my views on what war is, and what the possible justifications of war could be, as someone who has never participated in a war before.

I think that the very first sentence of the prompt is compelling. The fact is that we've been taught in class that consequentialism and intrinsicism are complete opposites in terms of ways of conducting a way in its cause, but they've invested in the fact that is very interesting to see, where intrinsicism is a method of consequentialism through the chaos that there needs to be both models present.
This is an idea that is very common to see in everyone's posts as well, with everyone having some statement of a mix between the two. However, they have different reasons for it. Countries must be tough in order to not be attacked, but countries must not be the ones to initiate combat and war.
I think especially we share the same views as my post. In a sense, we both agree on the rules of declaring war, where the line must be drawn from which we define as "self-defense." The point at which the war that is waged must be seen from many other perspectives other than just the two that are involved. If someone were to take both of our texts as an example, that person would most likely say that we would both agree.

Originally posted by Olympic on October 14, 2025 22:28

War is an extremely complicated idea, but the simplicity of it is that, realistically, war is inevitable, and sometimes necessary. In my opinion, it is naive to believe that war can be avoided in all circumstances, even if the war is morally wrong. Therefore, the consequentialism model is more realistic for the modern world. Since the Just War Theory basically takes the idea of intrinsicism “war is morally wrong” and adds a “but” to the statement, it is a bridge between intrinsicism and consequentialism. Just War Theory is still based on the idea that most war is morally wrong, however there are some certain circumstances that may give groups the right to start wars. For example, people can recognize that war is morally wrong, however if their country is being attacked war may be their last resort, which is not exactly claiming that war is morally correct, but it is arguing that war is not morally wrong if the outcome is just.

Citizens who live their lives entirely on morals should refuse to participate in a war that their nation wages for unjust reasons, but consequently citizens should not be morally required to refuse to participate in war. Not taking part in the war effort can cause the person harm and can take more courage than not to fight, because it may go against the norm of their society. Being a Conscientious Objector is not easy. People must have a right to decide what they think is best for themselves and then make a decision, because it is unrealistic to believe that most people should put other people, especially strangers, needs before their own. A good analogy for this is that on an airplane if people need to put on oxygen masks they are directed to put their own on as first priority and anyone else around them as later priority. Basically citizens should have the right to put themselves first. That being said, if enough people in a nation refuse to participate in an unjust war a positive consequence could be that the nation would struggle in the war and their unjust acts would hopefully slow or stop. Although with the complexities of war, this could lead to a counterattack from the opposing side that leads to intense harm for the nation and the people, even those fighting to stop the war.

I agree with Jeff McMahan that “we must stop reassuring soldiers that they act permissibly when they fight in an unjust war, provided that they conduct themselves honorably on the battlefield,” however, soldiers can act more honorably by participating in the acts that are permissible during war, while doing no other acts. That being said, they must still recognize their own responsibility. Soldiers can act morally well, but that does not mean that what they are doing is morally good. For example, if a soldier gives humane treatment to the wounded and captured they are acting honorably, but they are also fighting for a greater unjust cause. Realistically, this act of human decency may not matter by the time the actual war is played out. Additionally a main principle of jus in bello as stated in “The Principles of Just in Bello” is that it applies to “those who voluntarily enter the boxing ring,” but is a draft really a voluntary act subjecting people to have to choose if they must work for or against their nation? Overall the rules of jus in bello do compel the soldiers to act morally, but the greater cause may not require them to, so the decision is left to the individuals themselves.

The most important part in Olympic’s post is the claim that even though war is morally wrong in most cases, war is sometimes necessary and something that is unavoidable. I agree with Olympic when they mention that it is unrealistic for everybody to be against war since we live in a world where countries have to declare war in order to defend their country from another invading country. Olympic’s explanation of Just War Theory as a connection between intrinsicism and consequentialism is important since it more clearly states how moral reasoning can change to a big world event.

The oxygen mask example that Olympic brings up is important because it explains the issues between moral duty and self preservation. When the passengers were told to put their own masks on before helping others, Olympic uses this example to say that even though helping others is a good thing to do, it’s not realistic or fair to expect others to sacrifice themselves for others, such as people sacrificing their lives to fight in a war. The oxygen mask example highlights how someone’s moral responsibility has to balance doing kind things to others while prioritizing their own life before somebody else's.

In my opinion, If a country was getting invaded by another country, the only way to stop the invasion is fighting back. If they don’t fight back, the country getting invaded would quickly fall and collapse since there’s nothing holding back the invaders such as military vehicles and soldiers.